economy and politics

The Superior Court annuls Dolores Delgado’s order that forced prosecutors to declare whether or not they charge for preparing oppositions

The Attorney General's Office requires prosecutors to report on whether they prepare opponents

The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) places limits on the control of the preparation of opponents that Dolores Delgado imposed in 2022 when she was attorney general of the State. The judges of the Contentious Chamber annul the decree that imposed on all members of the prosecutor’s career the obligation to inform the State Attorney General’s Office about whether or not they carried out opposition preparation tasks. The ruling, to which has had access, establishes that only those who do carry out that activity will be obliged to provide this information.

The magistrates understand that the Public Ministry did not give “any reason” to justify the imposition of this mandate for all prosecutors and consider that the possible “carelessness or forgetfulness” or the attempt to avoid cases in which it “preferred not to transfer that information” do not justify extending that obligation to all members of the race.

The resolution considers an appeal by the conservative and majority Association of Prosecutors against this decree and against the declaration model in which prosecutors must reflect whether or not they prepare opponents. The group requested that the order be annulled “with respect to members of the prosecutor’s career who do not carry out opposition preparation activities” considering that the measure had no legal basis and, furthermore, was an “unacceptable interference” in the privacy of the members of the tax career.

In this sense, the AF argued that the legislation only protects that this information be requested from those who carry out the activity of preparing opponents “with the legitimate purpose of guaranteeing the objectivity and impartiality of the opposition courts.” And he also explained that the Constitution does not allow a citizen, whether private or public official, to be forced to “declare about what he does not do.”

The State Attorney’s Office, for its part, alleged that the purpose of this measure was precisely to “control and prevent” prosecutors who prepare opponents from being part of the courts that examine them, as well as ensuring compliance with the compatibility regulations. .

He added, in this sense, that the obligation to inform “in any case” was due to possible lack of response due to carelessness or forgetfulness, but also to the fact that, in some cases, “it was preferred not to transfer that information.” According to his criteria, you can only “guarantee the reliability and greater certainty of the information collected (…) through a declaration model that is presented whether the preparation action is carried out or not.”

That the majority of aspiring judges and prosecutors choose practicing judges and prosecutors to prepare their oppositions is no secret. Fewer attend academies or prepare on their own, but there is no reliable statistics on how many of the thousands of applicants who apply each year opt for each method.

But as published, active judges and prosecutors who carry out this preparation work charge hundreds of euros a month in black money, without reporting to the Prosecutor’s Office itself and of course without going through Treasury filters. This led the State Attorney General’s Office to approve new regulations that are now partially mutilated by this ruling from the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid.

Source link